From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Keener v. U.S.

U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Aug 16, 2007
Nos. 03-2028T 04-907T (Fed. Cl. Aug. 16, 2007)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In Keener, the Tax Court ultimately issued stipulated decisions in the partnership-level proceedings finding that the adjustments to partnership income and expense "were attributable to transactions 'which lacked economic substance,' as described in former I.R.C. § 6621(c)(3)(A)(v), 'so as to result in a substantial distortion of [partnership income and/or expense],' as described in I.R.C. § 6621(c)(3)(A)(iv)."

Summary of this case from Bush v. United States
See 6 Summaries

Opinion

Nos. 03-2028T 04-907T.

August 16, 2007

ORDER

FRANCIS ALLEGRA, Judge

On April 18, 2007, a published opinion was issued in this case granting defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that the court lacked jurisdiction over plaintiffs' allegations regarding the untimely assessment of tax attributable to partnership items, and allegations regarding the propriety of the assessment of tax motivated interest under former 26 U.S.C. § 6621(c). Keener v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 455 (2007). On August 8, 2007, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing to dismiss plaintiffs' remaining allegations regarding failure to abate the assessment of interest (including tax motivated interest under former 26 U.S.C. § 6621(c)) pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6404(e)(1). All of plaintiffs' claims have now been adjudicated. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to dismiss the complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Summaries of

Keener v. U.S.

U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Aug 16, 2007
Nos. 03-2028T 04-907T (Fed. Cl. Aug. 16, 2007)

In Keener, the Tax Court ultimately issued stipulated decisions in the partnership-level proceedings finding that the adjustments to partnership income and expense "were attributable to transactions 'which lacked economic substance,' as described in former I.R.C. § 6621(c)(3)(A)(v), 'so as to result in a substantial distortion of [partnership income and/or expense],' as described in I.R.C. § 6621(c)(3)(A)(iv)."

Summary of this case from Bush v. United States

In Keener, the court found that the taxpayers' statute of limitations claim was "attributable to a partnership item" and therefore was barred by section 7422(h) from being litigated in a refund action.

Summary of this case from Prati v. U.S.

In Keener, the court's reasoning was directed to the statute of limitations defense as a general matter and was not limited, as the appellants contend, to section 6229. Although the Keener court referred to section 6229 and did not mention section 6501, it is clear, given the interaction between sections 6501 and 6229, that the court's reference to section 6229 was merely a shorthand way of referring to the taxpayers' overall statute of limitations claim.

Summary of this case from Prati v. U.S.

In Keener, the court rejected the taxpayers' argument that § 6621(c) interest should not have been assessed against them because the transactions for which that interest was imposed were not "tax motivated transactions," as required by § 6621(c).

Summary of this case from Rowland v. United States

In Keener and River City Ranches, the courts distinguished between the actual assessment of interest under Section 6621(c) by the IRS, which requires that the partner's tax underpayment was greater than $1,000, and the factual determination of whether a partnership was engaged in sham transactions.

Summary of this case from Duffie v. U.S.

In Keener, the court concluded that Section 6621(c) interest is an affected item with a partnership-item component and a nonpartnership-item component.

Summary of this case from Duffie v. U.S.
Case details for

Keener v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH C. KEENER, el al Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant

Court:U.S. Court of Federal Claims

Date published: Aug 16, 2007

Citations

Nos. 03-2028T 04-907T (Fed. Cl. Aug. 16, 2007)

Citing Cases

Schell v. U.S.

As the government correctly notes, however, the cited regulation does not require that every § 6224(c)…

Rowland v. United States

Section 7422(h) "promote[s] judicial economy and consistency of decision" by "avoid[ing] the prospect of…

18 Citing Cases